DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a special civil action for certiorari, seeking the reversal of the Orders dated August 21,1998 and October 28, 1998 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, which denied petitioner'smotion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, respectively. 1wphi 1.nt

The facts are:

During a spot audit conducted on March 21, 1977 by a team of auditors from the Philippine NationalRed Cross (PNRC) headquarters, a cash shortage of P154,350.13 was discovered in the funds of itsBohol chapter. The chapter administrator, petitioner Francisca S. Baluyot, was held accountable forthe shortage. Thereafter, on January 8, 1998, private respondent Paul E. Holganza, in his capacityas a member of the board of directors of the Bohol chapter, filed an affidavit-complaint1 before theOffice of the Ombudsman charging petitioner of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised PenalCode. The complaint was docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-98-0022. However, upon recommendationby respondent Anna Marie P. Militante, Graft Investigation Officer I, an administrative docket fordishonesty was also opened against petitioner; hence, OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0063.2

On February 6, 1998, public respondent issued an Order3 requiring petitioner to file her counter-affidavit to the charges of malversation and dishonesty within ten days from notice, with a warningthat her failure to comply would be construed as a waiver on her part to refute the charges, and thatthe case would be resolved based on the evidence on record. On March 14, 1998, petitioner filedher counter-affidavit,4 raising principally the defense that public respondent had no jurisdiction overthe controversy. She argued that the Ombudsman had authority only over government-owned orcontrolled corporations, which the PNRC was not, or so she claimed.

On August 21, 1998, public respondent issued the first assailed Order5 denying petitioner's motion todismiss. It further scheduled a clarificatory hearing on the criminal aspect of the complaint and apreliminary conference on its administrative aspect on September 2, 1998. Petitioner received theorder on August 26, 1998 and she filed a motion for reconsideration6 the next day.

On October 28, 1998, public respondent issued the second assailed Order7 denying petitioner'smotion for reconsideration. Hence, this recourse.

We dismiss the petition.

Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of thecontroversy since the PNRC is allegedly a private voluntary organization. The followingcircumstances, she insists, are indicative of the private character of the organization: (1) the PNRCdoes not receive any budgetary support from the government, and that all money given to it by thelatter and its instrumentalities become private funds of the organization; (2) funds for the payment ofpersonnel's salaries and other emoluments come from yearly fund campaigns, private contributionsand rentals from its properties; and (3) it is not audited by the Commission on Audit. Petitioner statesthat the PNRC falls under the International Federation of Red Cross, a Switzerland-basedorganization, and that the power to discipline employees accused of misconduct, malfeasance, orimmorality belongs to the PNRC Secretary General by virtue of Section "G", Article IX of its by-laws.8 She threatens that "to classify the PNRC as a government-owned or controlled corporationwould create a dangerous precedent as it would lose its neutrality, independence and impartiality . . ..9

Practically the same issue was addressed in Camporedondo v. National Labor RelationsCommission, et. al.,10where an almost identical set of facts obtained. Petitioner therein was theadministrator of the Surigao del Norte chapter of the PNRC. An audit conducted by a field auditorrevealed a shortage in the chapter funds in the sum of P109,000.00. When required to restitute theamount of P135,927.78, petitioner therein instead applied for early retirement, which was denied bythe Secretary General of the PNRC. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegaldismissal and damages against PNRC before the National Labor Relations Commission. In turn,PNRC moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, averring that PNRC wasa government corporation whose employees are embraced by civil service regulation. The laborarbiter dismissed the complaint, and the Commission sustained his order. The petitioner assailed thedismissal of his complaint via a petition forcertiorari, contending that the PNRC is a privateorganization and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. In dismissing the petition, weruled thus:

Resolving the issue set out in the opening paragraph of this opinion, we rule that the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government owned and controlled corporation, with an original charter under Republic Act No. 95, as amended. The test to determine whether a corporation is government owned or controlled, or private in nature is simple. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are compulsory members of the Government Service Insurance System. The PNRC was not "impliedly converted to a private corporation" simply because its charter was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and other charges of all kinds on all importations and purchases for its exclusive use, on donations for its disaster relief work and other services and in its benefits and fund raising drives, and be allotted one lottery draw a year by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the support of its disaster relief operation in addition to its existing lottery draws for blood program.

Clearly then, public respondent has jurisdiction over the matter, pursuant to Section 13, of RepublicAct No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989", to wit:

Sec. 13. Mandate. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government- owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in ever case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people.11WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.